A presidential appointee temporarily sitting on the federal court bench may exercise full judicial powers, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The 49-page decision released Monday upheld the 200-year-old practice that allows the President to appoint federal judges while the Senate--which must confirm such appointments--is in recess. In such cases, the Senate votes on the appointments when it resumes meeting.

Your coverage of Bird's recent media interviews provided fascinating insight into our chief justice's thought process. It is obvious that Bird simply does not understand the reasons for voter concern over her performance. It is silly to believe that the primary thrust of Bird's opposition comes from long columns of right-wing ideologues, sexists, and sundry bigots marching in knee-jerk harmony to the beat of Drum Major Ed Meese's fight song, "Bye-Bye Birdie." Bird's voting record on tax-relief, busing and death penalty initiatives has revealed a well developed anti-initiative bias, that if allowed to continue, could place the California voter in the same environmental predicament as the California Condor, that of an endangered species.

A state watchdog agency dismissed misconduct charges Thursday against Court of Appeal Justice J. Anthony Kline for failing to follow a precedent in a court dissent. "We recognize that appellate jurists deal with legal principles and ideas," said the order by the Commission on Judicial Performance, approved on an 8-1 vote with two abstentions.

Of all the ironies sure to be brought out in the debate regarding the appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, perhaps none will be greater than the spectacle of conservatives arguing that Bork's "qualifications" for the position should shield him from political attack. These, of course, are the same people who brought about the political lynching of three California Supreme Court judges because of their alleged positions on a political issue--namely, the death penalty. The concept of "judicial independence" is dead, killed by the right-wing in California last year.

February 8, 2004 | Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh teaches constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law.

Congress wants to know what judges are doing. Does this trample on the judges' prerogatives? Specifically, it seeks information on how federal judges are applying sentencing guidelines, a complex set of rules promulgated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In exceptional cases, judges may depart from the guidelines either downward -- a lower sentence -- or upward -- a stiffer one.

Every once in a while The Times prints an editorial that has good intentions but is misguided both in its assumptions and conclusions. Your "Tale of Two Justices" is a good example. In it you advocate Justice Rehnquist's confirmation as chief justice of the United States and California Chief Justice Bird's retention for essentially the same reason--that we should approach the judiciary without an unfounded desire to change the American judicial tradition. Yours is an admirable view, but it is not sound with respect to Chief Justice Bird, for several reasons: 1--You cited Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist to underscore the importance of judicial independence.

With respect to the April 10 editorial, "The War on Judges," you are misstating the issue. The issue is not that those who oppose activist judges desire congressional control over the judiciary branch. You are correct in stating that the judiciary should be independent and is a separate and equal part of the three branches of the U.S. government. What people are opposed to are judges who create new legislation from the bench rather than interpreting existing laws or the Constitution. The country belongs to the people.

March 2, 2005 | Doug Bandow, Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

An activist judiciary has joined the legislative and executive branches in making public policy. The influence of judges has been magnified by their relative immunity from political pressure. Although the courts sometimes follow the election returns, in many cases, such as abortion, judicial decisions have short- circuited normal political discourse. That fact alone makes judicial appointments important.

The territory's High Court on Friday ruled against more than 5,300 mainland Chinese migrants claiming residency rights in a case testing judicial independence under Beijing's rule. In a written statement, Justice Frank Stock reaffirmed Beijing's power to interpret Hong Kong's mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law, even after Hong Kong courts have made decisions. "There can be no escape from the fact that the interpretation was lawful," he said.